Search

Introduction: Limited evidence exists showing the benefit of magnetic resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers. This study aims to assess the impact of MR-only planning on target volumes (TVs) and treatment plan doses to organs at risks (OARs) for anal and rectal cancers versus a computed tomography (CT)-only pathway. Materials and methods: Forty-six patients (29 rectum and 17 anus) undergoing preoperative or radical external beam radiotherapy received CT and T2 MR simulation. TV and OARs were delineated on CT and MR, and volumetric arc therapy treatment plans were optimized independently (53.2 Gy/28 fractions for anus, 45 Gy/25 fractions for rectum). Further treatment plans assessed gross tumor volume (GTV) dose escalation. Differences in TV volumes and OAR doses, in terms of Vx Gy (organ volume (%) receiving x dose (Gy)), were assessed. Results: MR GTV and primary planning TV (PTV) volumes systematically reduced by 13 cc and 98 cc (anus) and 44 cc and 109 cc (rectum) respectively compared to CT volumes. Statistically significant OAR dose reductions versus CT were found for bladder and uterus (rectum) and bladder, penile bulb, and genitalia (anus). With GTV boosting, statistically significant dose reductions were found for sigmoid, small bowel, vagina, and penile bulb (rectum) and vagina (anus). Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of MR (whether through MR-only or CT-MR pathways) to radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers has the potential to improve treatments. MR-related OAR dose reductions may translate into less treatment-related toxicity for patients or greater ability to dose escalate.

Highlights • Clinical Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy requires a dose quality assurance method. • Doses calculated on Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) were within 2% of MR-only doses calculated using synthetic CT. • CBCT with asymmetric dose difference tolerances of [−2%,1%] appears clinically feasible for quality assurance of prostate MR-only radiotherapy., Background and purpose Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only prostate radiotherapy using synthetic Computed Tomography (sCT) algorithms with high dose accuracy has been clinically implemented. MR images can suffer from geometric distortions so Quality Assurance (QA) using an independent, geometrically accurate, image could be required. The first-fraction Cone Beam CT (CBCT) has demonstrated potential but has not been evaluated in a clinical MR-only pathway. This study evaluated the clinical use of CBCT for dose accuracy QA of MR-only radiotherapy. Materials and methods A total of 49 patients treated with MR-only prostate radiotherapy were divided into two cohorts. Cohort 1 (20 patients) received a back-up CT, whilst Cohort 2 (29 patients) did not. All patients were planned using the sCT and received daily CBCT imaging with MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching. Each CBCT was calibrated using a patient-specific stepwise Hounsfield Units-to-mass density curve. The treatment plan was recalculated on the first-fraction CBCT using the clinically applied soft-tissue match and the doses compared. For Cohort 1 the sCT was rigidly registered to the back-up CT, the plan recalculated and doses compared. Results Mean sCT-CBCT dose difference across both cohorts was -0.6±0.1% (standard error of the mean, range −2.3%,2.3%), with 47/49 patients within [-2%,1%]. The sCT-CBCT dose difference was systematically lower than the sCT-CT by -0.7±0.6% (±95% limits of agreement). The mean sCT-CBCT gamma pass rate (2%/2mm) was 96.1±0.4% (85.4%,99.7%). Conclusions CBCT-based dose accuracy QA for MR-only radiotherapy appears clinically feasible. There was a small systematic sCT-CBCT dose difference implying asymmetric tolerances of [-2%,1%] would be appropriate.

Purpose Emerging evidence suggests that the heart is more radiosensitive than previously assumed; therefore, accounting for heart motion in radiation therapy planning is becoming more critical. In this study, we determined how much heart delineations based on 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT), 4-dimensional (4D) average projection (AVG), and maximum intensity projection (MIP) images should be extended to represent the full extent of heart motion during 4D imaging acquisition. Methods and Materials The 3D and 4D CT scans of 10 lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy were used. Median surfaces were derived from heart delineations of 3 observers on the 3D CT, AVG, MIP, and 25% exhale scans. Per patient, the 25% exhale contour was propagated on every phase of the 4D scan. The union of all 4D phase delineations (U4D) represented the full extent of heart motion during imaging acquisition. Surface distances from U4D to 3D, AVG, and MIP volumes were calculated. Distances in the most extreme surface points (1.5 cm most superoinferior, 10% most right/left/anteroposterior) were used to derive margins accounting only for systematic (delineation) errors. Results Heart delineations on the MIP were the closest to the full extent of motion, requiring only ≤2.5-mm margins. Delineations on the AVG and 3D scans required margins up to 3.4 and 7.1 mm, respectively. The largest margins were for the inferior, right, and anterior aspects for the delineations on the 3D, AVG, and MIP scans, respectively. Conclusion Delineations on 3D, AVG, or MIP scans required extensions for representing the heart’s full extent of motion, with the MIP requiring the smallest margins. Research including daily imaging to determine the random components for the margins and dosimetric measurements to determine the relevance of creating a planning organ at risk volume of the heart is required.

PURPOSE This study investigates the dosimetric accuracy as well as the robustness of a bulk density assignment approach to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only based treatment planning of the prostate, with bulk density regions automatically identified using atlas-based segmentation (ABS). METHODS Twenty prostate radiotherapy patients received planning computed tomography (CT) and MRI scans and were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Two bulk densities were set, one for bone and one for soft tissue. The bone contours were created by using ABS followed by manual modification if considered necessary. A range of soft tissue and bone density pairs, between 0.95 and 1.03 g/cm3 with increments of 0.01 for soft tissue, and between 1.15 and 1.65 g/cm3 with increments of 0.05 for bone, were evaluated. Using the density pair giving the lowest dose difference compared to the CT-based dose, dose differences were calculated using both the manually modified bone contours and the bone contours from ABS. Contour overlap measurements between the ABS contours and the manually modified contours were calculated. RESULTS The dose comparison shows a very good agreement with the CT when using 0.98 g/cm3 for soft tissue and 1.20 g/cm3 for bone, with a dose difference less than 1 % in average dose in all regions of interest. The mean Dice similarity coefficient for bone was 0.94 and the Mean Distance to Agreement was

Background and purpose: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in radiotherapy (RT). However, geometric distortions are a known challenge of using MRI in RT. The aim of this study was to demonstrate feasibility of a national audit of MRI geometric distortions. This was achieved by assessing large field of view (FOV) MRI distortions on a number of scanners used clinically for RT. Materials and methods: MRI scans of a large FOV MRI geometric distortion phantom were acquired on 11 MRI scanners that are used clinically for RT in the UK. The mean and maximum distortions and variance between scanners were reported at different distances from the isocentre. Results: For a small FOV representing a brain (100–150 mm from isocentre) all distortions were 10 mm in some cases. The variance between scanners was low and was found to increase with distance from isocentre. Conclusions: This study demonstrated feasibility of the technique to be repeated in a country wide geometric distortion audit of all MRI scanners used clinically for RT. Recommendations were made for performing such an audit and how to derive acceptable limits of distortion in such an audit.

Highlights • Magnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires an on-treatment image verification method. • This study investigated the accuracy of MR-Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) image matching. • MR-CBCT matching was not clinically different to CT-CBCT (mean differences ⩽0.2 mm). • MR-CBCT matching had similar (within 0.5 mm) inter-observer variability to CT-CBCT., Background and purpose Magnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires a method for matching image with on-treatment Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching for prostate MR-only radiotherapy. Materials and methods Three patient cohorts were used, with all patients receiving MR and CT scans. For the first cohort (10 patients) the first fraction CBCT was automatically rigidly registered to the CT and MR scans and the MR-CT registration predicted using the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT registrations. This was compared to the automatic MR-CT registration. For the second and third cohorts (five patients each) the first fraction CBCT was independently matched to the CT and MR by four radiographers, the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT matches compared and the inter-observer variability assessed. The second cohort used a CT-based structure set and the third a MR-based structure set with the MR relabelled as a ‘CT’. Results The mean difference between predicted and actual MR-CT registrations was ΔRAll=-0.1±0.2mm (s.e.m.). Radiographer MR-CBCT registrations were not significantly different to CT-CBCT, with mean differences in soft-tissue match ⩽0.2mm and all except one difference ⩽3.3mm. This was less than the MR-CBCT inter-observer limits of agreement [3.5,2.4,0.9]mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral), which were similar (⩽0.5mm) to CT-CBCT. Conclusions MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is not significantly different to CT-CBCT. Relabelling the MR as a ‘CT’ does not appear to change the automatic registration. This suggests that MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is feasible and accurate.

Highlights • MR-only patient positioning for anal and rectal cancers using CBCT. • MR-only results in systematic positioning differences to of, Background and Purpose Magnetic resonance (MR)-only treatment pathways require either the MR-simulation or synthetic-computed tomography (sCT) as an alternative reference image for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) patient position verification. This study assessed whether using T2 MR or sCT as CBCT reference images introduces systematic registration errors as compared to CT for anal and rectal cancers. Materials and Methods A total of 32 patients (18 rectum,14 anus) received pre-treatment CT- and T2 MR- simulation. Routine treatment CBCTs were acquired. sCTs were generated using a validated research model. The local clinical registration protocol, using a grey-scale registration algorithm, was performed for 216 CBCTs using CT, MR and sCT as the reference image. Linear mixed effects modelling identified systematic differences between modalities. Results Systematic translation and rotation differences to CT for MR were −0.3 to + 0.3 mm and −0.1 to 0.4° for anal cancers and −0.4 to 0.0 mm and 0.0 to 0.1° for rectal cancers, and for sCT were −0.4 to + 0.8 mm, −0.1 to 0.2° for anal cancers and −0.6 to + 0.2 mm, −0.1 to + 0.1° for rectal cancers. Conclusions T2 MR or sCT can successfully be used as reference images for anal and rectal cancer CBCT position verification with systematic differences to CT

This document gives guidance for multidisciplinary teams within institutions setting up and using an MRI-guided radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning service. It has been written by a multidisciplinary working group from the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Guidance has come from the experience of the institutions represented in the IPEM working group, in consultation with other institutions, and where appropriate references are given for any relevant legislation, other guidance documentation and information in the literature. Guidance is only given for MRI acquired for external beam RT treatment planning in a CT-based workflow, i.e. when MRI is acquired and registered to CT with the purpose of aiding delineation of target or organ at risk volumes. MRI use for treatment response assessment, MRI-only RT and other RT treatment types such as brachytherapy and gamma radiosurgery are not considered within the scope of this document. The aim was to produce guidance that will be useful for institutions who are setting up and using a dedicated MR scanner for RT (referred to as an MR-sim) and those who will have limited time on an MR scanner potentially managed outside of the RT department, often by radiology. Although not specifically covered in this document, there is an increase in the use of hybrid MRI-linac systems worldwide and brief comments are included to highlight any crossover with the early implementation of this technology. In this document, advice is given on introducing a RT workload onto a non-RT-dedicated MR scanner, as well as planning for installation of an MR scanner dedicated for RT. Next, practical guidance is given on the following, in the context of RT planning: training and education for all staff working in and around an MR scanner; RT patient set-up on an MR scanner; MRI sequence optimisation for RT purposes; commissioning and quality assurance (QA) to be performed on an MR scanner; and MRI to CT registration, including commissioning and QA.

Highlights • Accurate Synthetic-CT (sCT) generation for anorectal cancers. • Deep learning sCT generation with varied input data. • T2-SPACE MRI sequence use for generalisable pelvic synthetic-CT., Background and purpose Comprehensive dosimetric analysis is required prior to the clinical implementation of pelvic MR-only sites, other than prostate, due to the limited number of site specific synthetic-CT (sCT) dosimetric assessments in the literature. This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of a deep learning-based, conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) model for a large ano-rectal cancer cohort. The following challenges were investigated; T2-SPACE MR sequences, patient data from multiple centres and the impact of sex and cancer site on sCT quality. Method RT treatment position CT and T2-SPACE MR scans, from two centres, were collected for 90 ano-rectal patients. A cGAN model trained using a focal loss function, was trained and tested on 46 and 44 CT-MR ano-rectal datasets, paired using deformable registration, respectively. VMAT plans were created on CT and recalculated on sCT. Dose differences and gamma indices assessed sCT dosimetric accuracy. A linear mixed effect (LME) model assessed the impact of centre, sex and cancer site. Results A mean PTV D95% dose difference of 0.1% (range: −0.5% to 0.7%) was found between CT and sCT. All gamma index (1%/1 mm threshold) measurements were >99.0%. The LME model found the impact of modality, cancer site, sex and centre was clinically insignificant (effect ranges: −0.4% and 0.3%). The mean dose difference for all OAR constraints was 0.1%. Conclusion Focal loss cGAN models using T2-SPACE MR sequences from multiple centres can produce generalisable, dosimetrically accurate sCTs for ano-rectal cancers.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers superior soft-tissue contrast as compared with computed tomography (CT), which is conventionally used for radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) and patient positioning verification, resulting in improved target definition. The 2 modalities are co-registered for RTP; however, this introduces a systematic error. Implementing an MRI-only radiation therapy workflow would be advantageous because this error would be eliminated, the patient pathway simplified, and patient dose reduced. Unlike CT, in MRI there is no direct relationship between signal intensity and electron density; however, various methodologies for MRI-only RTP have been reported. A systematic review of these methods was undertaken. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Embase and Medline databases were searched (1996 to March, 2017) for studies that generated synthetic CT scans (sCT)s for MRI-only radiation therapy. Sixty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. This review showed that MRI-only RTP techniques could be grouped into 3 categories: (1) bulk density override; (2) atlas-based; and (3) voxel-based techniques, which all produce an sCT scan from MR images. Bulk density override techniques either used a single homogeneous or multiple tissue override. The former produced large dosimetric errors (>2%) in some cases and the latter frequently required manual bone contouring. Atlas-based techniques used both single and multiple atlases and included methods incorporating pattern recognition techniques. Clinically acceptable sCTs were reported, but atypical anatomy led to erroneous results in some cases. Voxel-based techniques included methods using routine and specialized MRI sequences, namely ultra-short echo time imaging. High-quality sCTs were produced; however, use of multiple sequences led to long scanning times increasing the chances of patient movement. Using nonroutine sequences would currently be problematic in most radiation therapy centers. Atlas-based and voxel-based techniques were found to be the most clinically useful methods, with some studies reporting dosimetric differences of

There is increasing interest in MR-only radiotherapy planning since it provides superb soft-tissue contrast without the registration uncertainties inherent in a CT-MR registration. However, MR images cannot readily provide the electron density information necessary for radiotherapy dose calculation. An algorithm which generates synthetic CTs for dose calculations from MR images of the prostate using an atlas of 3 T MR images has been previously reported by two of the authors. This paper aimed to evaluate this algorithm using MR data acquired at a different field strength and a different centre to the algorithm atlas. Twenty-one prostate patients received planning 1.5 T MR and CT scans with routine immobilisation devices on a flat-top couch set-up using external lasers. The MR receive coils were supported by a coil bridge. Synthetic CTs were generated from the planning MR images with ([Formula: see text]) and without (sCT) a one voxel body contour expansion included in the algorithm. This was to test whether this expansion was required for 1.5 T images. Both synthetic CTs were rigidly registered to the planning CT (pCT). A 6 MV volumetric modulated arc therapy plan was created on the pCT and recalculated on the sCT and [Formula: see text]. The synthetic CTs' dose distributions were compared to the dose distribution calculated on the pCT. The percentage dose difference at isocentre without the body contour expansion (sCT-pCT) was [Formula: see text] and with ([Formula: see text]-pCT) was [Formula: see text] (mean ± one standard deviation). The [Formula: see text] result was within one standard deviation of zero and agreed with the result reported previously using 3 T MR data. The sCT dose difference only agreed within two standard deviations. The mean ± one standard deviation gamma pass rate was [Formula: see text] for the sCT and [Formula: see text] for the [Formula: see text] (with [Formula: see text] global dose difference and [Formula: see text] distance to agreement gamma criteria). The one voxel body contour expansion improves the synthetic CT accuracy for MR images acquired at 1.5 T but requires the MR voxel size to be similar to the atlas MR voxel size. This study suggests that the atlas-based algorithm can be generalised to MR data acquired using a different field strength at a different centre.

Introduction/Background: The benefits of integrating MRI into the radiotherapy pathway are well published, however there is little consensus in guidance on how to commission or implement its use. With a view to developing consensus guidelines for the use of MRI in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment planning in the UK, a survey was undertaken by an Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) working-party to assess the current landscape of MRI use in EBRT in the UK. Methods: A multi-disciplinary working-party developed a survey to understand current practice using MRI for EBRT treatment planning; investigate how MRI is currently used and managed; and identify knowledge gaps. The survey was distributed electronically to radiotherapy service managers and physics leads in 71 UK radiotherapy (RT) departments (all NHS and private groups). Results: The survey response rate was 87% overall, with 89% of NHS and 75% of private centres responding. All responding centres include EBRT in some RT pathways: 94% using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACs) images potentially acquired without any input from RT departments, and 69% had some form of MRI access for planning EBRT. Most centres reporting direct access use a radiology scanner within the same hospital in dedicated (26%) or non-dedicated (52%) RT scanning sessions. Only two centres reported having dedicated RT MRI scanners in the UK, lower than reported in other countries. Six percent of radiotherapy patients in England (data not publically available outside of England) have MRI as part of their treatment, which again is lower than reported elsewhere. Although a substantial number of centres acquire MRI scans for treatment planning purposes, most centres acquire less than five patient scans per month for each treatment site. Commissioning and quality assurance of both image registration and MRI scanners was found to be variable across the UK. In addition, staffing models and training given to different staff groups varied considerably across the UK, reflecting the current lack of national guidelines. Conclusion: The primary barriers reported to MRI implementation in EBRT planning included costs (e.g., lack of a national tariff for planning MRI), lack of MRI access and/or capacity within hospitals. Despite these challenges, significant interest remains in increasing MRI-assisted EBRT planning over the next five years.

Objectives: Treatment verification for MR-only planning has focused on fiducial marker matching, however, these are difficult to identify on MR. An alternative is using the MRI for soft-tissue matching with cone beam computed tomography images (MR-CBCT). However, therapeutic radiographers have limited experience of MRI. This study aimed to assess transferability of therapeutic radiographers CT-CBCT prostate image matching skills to MR-CBCT image matching. Methods: 23 therapeutic radiographers with 3 months–5 years’ experience of online daily CT-CBCT soft-tissue matching prostate cancer patients participated. Each observer completed a baseline assessment of 10 CT-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image matches, followed by 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment. A MRI anatomy training intervention was delivered and the 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment was repeated. Limits of agreement were calculated as the disagreement of the observers with mean of all observers. Results: Limits of agreement at CT-CBCT baseline were 2.8 mm, 2.8 mm, 0.7 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). MR-CBCT matches prior to training were 3.3 mm, 3.1 mm, 0.9 mm, and after training 2.6 mm, 2.4 mm, 1.1 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). Results show similar limits of agreement across the assessments, and variation reduced following the training intervention. Conclusion: This suggests therapeutic radiographers’ prostate CBCT image matching skills are transferrable to a MRI planning scan, since MR-CBCT matching has comparable observer variation to CT-CBCT matching. Advances in knowledge: This is the first publication assessing interobserver MR-CBCT prostate soft tissue matching in an MR-only pathway.

Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance (PET-MR) scanners could improve radiotherapy planning through combining PET and MR functional imaging. This depends on acquiring high quality and quantitatively accurate images in the radiotherapy position. This study evaluated PET-MR image quality using a flat couch and coil bridge for pelvic radiotherapy. MR and PET image quality phantoms were imaged in three setups: phantom on the PET-MR couch with anterior coil on top (diagnostic), phantom on a flat couch with coil on top (couch), and phantom on the flat couch with coil on a coil bridge (radiotherapy). PET images were also acquired in each setup without the anterior coil. PET attenuation correction of the flat couch and coil bridge were generated using kilovoltage computed tomography (CT) images and of the anterior coil using megavoltage CT images. MR image quality was substantially affected, with MR signal to noise ratio (SNR) relative to the diagnostic setup of 89% ± 2% (mean ± standard error of the mean, couch) and 54% ± 1% (radiotherapy), likely due to the increased distance between the patient and receive coils. The reduction impacted the low-contrast detectability score: 23 ± 1 (diagnostic), 19.7 ± 0.3 (couch) and 15 ± 1 (radiotherapy). All other MR metrics agreed within one standard error. PET quantitative accuracy was also affected, with measured activity with anterior coil being different to diagnostic without anterior coil by −16.7% ± 0.2% (couch) and −17.7 ± 0.1% (radiotherapy), without attenuation correction modification. Including the couch and coil bridge attenuation correction reduced this difference to −7.5% ± 0.1%, and including the anterior coil reduced this to −2.7% ± 0.1%. This was better than the diagnostic setup with anterior coil (difference −8.3% ± 0.2%). This translated into greater PET SNR performance for the fully corrected radiotherapy setup compared to diagnostic with coil. However contrast recovery was unchanged by the modified attenuation correction, with the diagnostic setup remaining ∼2% better. Quantitative PET in the radiotherapy setup is possible if appropriate attenuation correction is used. Pelvic radiotherapy PET-MR imaging protocols will need to consider the impact on PET-MR image quality.

OBJECTIVE:Application of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI (WB-DWI) for oncology are rapidly increasing within both research and routine clinical domains. However, WB-DWI as a quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) has significantly slower adoption. To date, challenges relating to accuracy and reproducibility, essential criteria for a good QIB, have limited widespread clinical translation. In recognition, a UK workgroup was established in 2016 to provide technical consensus guidelines (to maximise accuracy and reproducibility of WB-MRI QIBs) and accelerate the clinical translation of quantitative WB-DWI applications for oncology.METHODS:A panel of experts convened from cancer centres around the UK with subspecialty expertise in quantitative imaging and/or the use of WB-MRI with DWI. A formal consensus method was used to obtain consensus agreement regarding best practice. Questions were asked about the appropriateness or otherwise on scanner hardware and software, sequence optimisation, acquisition protocols, reporting, and ongoing quality control programs to monitor precision and accuracy and agreement on quality control.RESULTS:The consensus panel was able to reach consensus on 73% (255/351) items and based on consensus areas made recommendations to maximise accuracy and reproducibly of quantitative WB-DWI studies performed at 1.5T. The panel were unable to reach consensus on the majority of items related to quantitative WB-DWI performed at 3T.CONCLUSION:This UK Quantitative WB-DWI Technical Workgroup consensus provides guidance on maximising accuracy and reproducibly of quantitative WB-DWI for oncology. The consensus guidance can be used by researchers and clinicians to harmonise WB-DWI protocols which will accelerate clinical translation of WB-DWI-derived QIBs.

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is the current standard for delineating tumours of the head and neck for radiotherapy. Although metabolic imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) has been used in recent years, the studies were non-confirmatory in establishing its routine role in radiotherapy planning in the modern era. This study explored the difference in gross tumour volume and clinical target volume definitions for the primary and nodal volumes when FDG PET/CT was used as compared with CECT in oropharyngeal cancer cases.Twenty patients with oropharyngeal cancers had a PET/CT scan in the treatment position after consent. Target volumes were defined on CECT scans by a consultant clinical oncologist who was blind to the PET scans. After obtaining inputs from a radiologist, another set of target volumes were outlined on the PET/CT data set. The gross and clinical target volumes as defined on the two data sets were then analysed. The hypothesis of more accurate target delineation, preventing geographical miss and comparative overlap volumes between CECT and PET/CT, was explored. The study also analysed the volumes of intersection and analysed whether there was any TNM stage migration when PET/CT was used as compared with CECT for planning.In 17 of 20 patients, the TNM stage was not altered when adding FDG PET information to CT. PET information prevented geographical miss in two patients and identified distant metastases in one case. PET/CT gross tumour volumes were smaller than CECT volumes (mean ± standard deviation: 25.16 cm(3) ± 35.8 versus 36.56 cm(3) ± 44.14; P0.015) for the primary tumour. Interestingly, our study showed no significant differences in gross tumour volume for T1/T2 disease, although differences in gross tumour volumes for advanced disease (T3/T4) were significant. The nodal target volumes (mean ± standard deviation: CECT versus PET/CT 32.48 cm(3) ± 36.63 versus 32.21 cm(3) ± 37.09; P0.86) were not statistically different. Similarity and discordance coefficients were calculated and are reported.PET/CT as compared with CECT could provide more clinically relevant information and prevent geographical miss when used for radiotherapy planning for advanced oropharyngeal tumours. Also, PET/CT provided a smaller better-defined target volume when compared with CECT. PET/CT-based volumes could therefore be used for treatment planning and targeted dose painting in oropharyngeal cancers.

Purpose: To compare the measured radiographic entrance surface dose with thatobtained by calculation based on routine quality assurance (QA) measurements. To devise a computer-based system by which radiographers can determine patient doses from exposure factors recorded at the time of examination and compare the results with national reference levels. Methods: Patient doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosemeters(TLD) and the results compared with those obtained by calculation for the same patients. A computer program was written to enable dose calculation to be performed by radiographers using a departmental personal computer (PC). Results: The agreement between doses determined by the two methods iswithin ± 20% except for chest examinations. The computer program has been successfully used by radiographers to survey patient doses. Conclusion: Calculation, based on QA measurements, is a viable alternative todirect patient measurement. Once installed, the computer program can be used for routine dose audit for large numbers of patients.

Background: The use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging as a part of preparation for radiotherapy is increasing. For delineation of the prostate several publications have shown decreased delineation variability using MR compared to computed tomography (CT). The purpose of the present work was to investigate the intra- and inter-physician delineation variability for prostate and seminal vesicles, and to investigate the influence of different MR sequence settings used clinically at the five centers participating in the study. Methods: MR series from five centers, each providing five patients, were used. Two physicians from each center delineated the prostate and the seminal vesicles on each of the 25 image sets. The variability between the delineations was analyzed with respect to overall, intra-and inter-physician variability, and dependence between variability and origin of the MR images, i.e. the MR sequence used to acquire the data. Results: The intra-physician variability in different directions was between 1.3 - 1.9 mm and 3 - 4 mm for the prostate and seminal vesicles respectively (1 std). The inter-physician variability for different directions were between 0.7 - 1.7 mm and approximately equal for the prostate and seminal vesicles. Large differences in variability were observed for individual patients, and also for individual imaging sequences used at the different centers. There was however no indication of decreased variability with higher field strength. Conclusion: The overall delineation variability is larger for the seminal vesicles compared to the prostate, due to a larger intra-physician variability. The imaging sequence appears to have a large influence on the variability, even for different variants of the T2-weighted spin-echo based sequences, which were used by all centers in the study.